General Category > Blog
Article 13 of the EU Copyright Directive
ratty redemption:
yeah, it was the latter i was wondering about. do you think that would be similar tech to yt's content id matching?
kat:
In principle YouTube's ContentID system is likely what we'll start seeing more broadly across the big platforms but the details will depend on what service providers offer to the public/Users, how its accessed, and what rights holders require of service for complacence.
What we may actually find is that the costs associated with doing this kind of filtering being so prohibitive for many, small services and start-ups in particular, they will likely just block European IPs from accessing their services than deal with the issue, especially if they're located outside the EU - even inside the EU it's going to cost a lot in R&D to develop and keep up with the ever-changing demands from rights holders who have their own platforms and networks over which content can be distributed.
ratty redemption:
understood.
kat:
EU Parliament rejected the Copyright Reform bill in its current form, putting it up for review in September. This means the legislation will likely be amended to make it less contentious, especially in regards to Article 11 and 13.
--- Quote ---Parliament’s plenary voted by 318 votes to 278, with 31 abstentions to reject the negotiating mandate, proposed by the Legal Affairs Committee on 20 June. As a result, Parliament’s position will now be up for debate, amendment, and a vote during the next plenary session, in September.
--- End quote ---
kat:
The amendment vote is tomorrow (Wednesday). Latest version of the legislation here (original proposed version).
To be clear, the vote isn't so much about establishing a protection of copy Rights, but granting the authority to oversee European wide enforcement to EU legislators, the legislation is a move by the EU to solidify the European Union using copyright issues as a 'issue' cover towards this aim.
--- Quote ---The proposal is based on Article 114 TFEU. This Article confers on the EU the power to adopt measures which have as their object the establishment and functioning of the internal market. Since exceptions and limitations to copyright and related rights are harmonised at EU level, the margin of manoeuver of Member States in creating or adapting them is limited. In addition, intervention at national level would not be sufficient in view of the cross-border nature of the identified issues. EU intervention is therefore needed to achieve full legal certainty as regards cross-border uses in the fields of research, education and cultural heritage.
--- End quote ---
What this does in a general sense is establish final authority over Copyright in the EU and its legal systems rather than the Courts and jurisdictions of member States; essentially the European Parliament/Union claims a superior jurisdiction over member states (member States and their Citizens are/would be subservient to the European Parliament [in matters of Copyright]) - an infringement claim argued between two countries, say the UK and France, would be determined in Brussels rather than the primary jurisdiction of the claimants (as is the case now).
In other words, the legislative proposals don't necessarily define mechanisms of arbitration rather they establish and authoritative jurisdiction - it's possible to cede non-legislative, non-formalised, authority to third parties through good-faith agreement between all concerned, what arbitration is in es essence. Ceding such legal authority is troubling.
In a nut shell it doesn't matter what the fineries of the Bill are because the issue actually being discussed is not about Copyright per se, rather the European Parliament claiming jurisdiction over copyright Europe-wide in a way that it supersedes individual State Sovereignty.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version